“A jury delivered an extraordinary blow to the government in a long-running battle over the use of public lands when it acquitted all seven defendants involved in the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in rural southeastern Oregon.

Tumult erupted in the courtroom Thursday after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released and repeatedly yelled at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.”<<<Read More>>>

Shawna Cox, a key figure in the Oregon militia standoff who is accused of conspiring against the government, says she “suffered damages from the works of the devil” and wants federal officials to award her $666bn.

Cox, a 59-year-old Kanab, Utah woman facing federal charges for her role in the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge, has filed a “counter criminal complaint” against “federal employees” seeking “six hundred sixty six billion, six hundred sixty six million, six hundred sixty six thousand, six hundred sixty six dollars and sixty six cents”.

Regardless of whether you believe the occupiers were there legally or not, whether you think they are “militants” or “patriots” or whether you believe LaVoy Finnicum was “murdered in an ambush” or a “killed in a shoot-out at a traffic stop” there is one thing we can all agree on—our country is in trouble.

Many of us are feeling it but we just don’t know what to do about it. To a lot of us it’s very personal. It is hard to explain or articulate our frustrations and those who try often get labeled as “anti-government” or “radicals.”

I find it interesting that the occupiers of the refuge were labeled as militants while the occupiers of Wall Street were simply “protestors.” Why is it that the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson were reported as “unrest” and condoned by the government when the peaceful protests of those in Oregon were reported as if it was an act of terrorism? You can’t it both ways. We have got to stop allowing the government to use us as pawns in their political game.

The following is a Letter sent to the Editor of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman Review. It answers an article “Kick cows off refuge lands” by a Professor at Eastern Washington University that appeared in the paper. The article appears after the Letter.. Jim Beers

“Once proud” is a term overused in today’s dwindling newspaper publishing business. A significant factor contributing to the demise of many “once proud” newspapers is their yielding to the temptation to pander to the imaginary boogeymen of uninformed readers with myths from reputedly informed writers. Sad to say, you have entirely succumbed to this disgusting temptation by publishing, Professor Lindholdt’s “Kick cows off refuge lands” a composition worthy of some “Occupy Wall Street” handbill passed around during a demonstration.

The following refutations apply to the main assertions in your (i.e. Lindholdt’s) diatribe.

1.) The Bundy’s and other occupiers of Malheur have very legitimate grievances with the USFWS, the BLM and the US Forest Service. That they picked Malheur to give attention to their grievances is as logical as any other USDI or USDA facility. The wildlife resources of Malheur Refuge are as healthy as ever. One of those ranchers is dead and the other fathers and husbands face imprisonment. Given the Professor’s animus toward ranchers, is it futile to ask him to “give it a rest?”

2.) The Professor’s liking of the vegetarian diet is as relevant to the article’s title as is my preferences for snow goose cassoulet or walleye filets parmesaned.

3.) Ranches are indeed corporations and as such they provide immense fuel for Local communities’ economies such as jobs, support businesses and revenue for Local governments to protect Local communities from both the federal government and uncaring interlopers like Professor Lindholdt. Furthermore, when these refuges were founded like Little Pend Oreille in 1939; you can bet your bippy that the Local community was asked to welcome the refuge and their once benign efforts to benefit wildlife and by extension the Local citizenry. Like the majority of refuges in the system, the Congressional Authorizing Legislation paid homage to Local communities and their governments and stressed (now slowly being eradicated like Jewish achievements under German National Socialism) that waterfowl and other Treaty species like songbirds were of primary consideration.

4.) Speaking of the Professor’s fawning homage to two recent lady refuge managers that “ousted” the cows from Turnblull NWR (“ more than 3,000 acres of wetlands of the last quality breeding habitat available in eastern Washington

for waterfowl”), and Little Pend Oreille NWR’s; his enthusiasm is offset by the negative impacts the waterfowl production very likely suffered. Regulated (by time, intensity and grazing species) grazing by livestock is an important tool in managing wetlands and associated nesting cover for desirable waterfowl species’ nesting success. Like timber management (another modern boogeyman) as a regulated tool also provides benefits to desirable plant and animals species and their abundance is vilified, so too is livestock grazing besmirched as inherently harmful. Both beliefs are false.

5.) I see the Professor also accuses opponents of the ESA as involved in a “coalition” within the agriculture industry that sponsor “illegal measures” to punish “whistleblowers”. I could write several books (I have written over a thousand such articles) about why the ESA should be “defeated”. As a Utah State Wildlife graduate; a Utah Fish and Game former employee; a USFWS wetlands biologist in North Dakota; a US Game Management Agent in Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City and Washington, DC; a USFWS Animal Damage Control Program Coordinator in Washington, DC; Chief of the Branch of Refuge Operations in Washington, DC; wildlife biologist administering Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax funding to state wildlife departments from Washington, DC; member of both a State Department team and US Trade Representative Team battling unjust fur regulations in the European Union; and as a Congressional Fellow I oppose the ESA: that neither makes me a bad person or one in need of “re-education”.

6.) As a “whistleblower” myself, I was amused by the Professor’s concern about suppressing “whistleblowers” he supports. When I testified twice before a packed US House of Representatives Committee about the theft of $45 to 60 Million in state wildlife funds by USFWS managers to trap Canadian wolves, release said wolves in Yellowstone, and open an office in California – all 3 of which Congress had refused to either authorize or fund) – I became a “whistleblower”. I was threatened with loss of my health care and my pension after 32 years with USFWS and 4 years as an officer in the US Navy and I spent ten months at home with full pay and then was offered and accepted a large cash settlement (thank you Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer) on condition I would not speak or write about the circumstances of my “retirement” for 3 years (so much for “transparency”.) By the way this was all perpetrated by the same folks administering these Refuges and that the good Professor lauds while ranchers are imprisoned and shot. Ooohh, the ranchers copied down his license plate? Poor baby.

In closing, cattle should not be banned from refuges. Refuges were created and remain funded to care for wildlife and the people that use and enjoy them. Camping is a “secondary” use of refuges as it is these days for National Forests and National Parks, both of which were founded to provide camping but today are increasingly becoming closed federal enclaves that ignore Local communities, Local governments and any activity not favored by political bosses back in Washington, DC. I suggest the Professor look for Parks and Forests the next time and that if he continues to attend rancher meetings he exert the sort of discretion one might at a Black Lives Matter Meeting and not provoke the Local folks or belittle their concerns.

Oh and one more thing, I am often asked when I speak and when I write, “Mr. Beers, how did these bureaucrats ever get like they have become?” My new answer from now on will be. “Because they all studied wildlife under English Professors like Mr. Lindholdt at Eastern Washington University that not only are ignorant and biased about wildlife but that also harbor a deep dislike for rural Americans and the rural America that made (and makes) America great.

Jim Beers

7 February 2016

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Is It Any Wonder Some Conclude Civil Disobedience is a Safe and Consequence-Free Activity?

WASHINGTON, DC – Left-wing activists and news outlets that only partially cover their activities are in part to blame for the confrontation in Oregon that led to the death of LaVoy Finicum, says the National Center for Public Policy Research.

That’s because left-wing organizations often use civil disobedience without consequences, which leads the public to believe law-breaking in pursuit of political or public policy goals can take place without serious consequences.

Parts of the news media are complicit because they cover stories in ways that help the left-wing organizations achieve their goals.

Kieran Suckling, the executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a left-wing green group, was repeatedly covered in the news media criticizing those occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (for example, here, here, here, here,here ). No story we found mentioned that Suckling has been found guilty in court (here, here) for occupying private property and refusing to leave as part of a political protest, or that he has been arrested (and even bragged about it by issuing a press release) for civil disobedience as recently as 2014.

“In yet another case of ‘do as I say, not as I do,’ the environmental left is protesting civil disobedience by citizens while it practices and/or condones civil disobedience itself,” said David Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Kieran Suckling, the executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a left-wing green group that sues the government while expecting the taxpayers to pay its legal bills, has gone to Oregon to protest the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Yet he has been found guilty of much the same offense. Occupying another’s property without their permission in the name of a political cause is either wrong or it isn’t. It isn’t okay when the environmental movement does it and wrong for everyone else. Kieran Suckling is much like the Bundys; he may disagree on policy but he’s used the same technique,” Ridenour added. “Kieran Suckling should be laughed out of Oregon for his hypocrisy. So should any news reporter who writes about the Center for Biological Diversity’s statements about the occupation at the wildlife refuge without covering Mr. Suckling’s past conviction in a court of law for similar activities.”

Parts of law enforcement also share partial blame, the group says.

“Kieran Suckling is far from the only leftist to be arrested for civil disobedience,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Most liberal activists who commit civil disobedience are never charged, or get merely a tiny slap on the wrist. The news media runs pictures of left-wing activists getting arrested for their cause of the day knowing full well the charges will be dropped, but the media never tells the public the arrests are all-but-fake. Quite often all this is arranged in advance. The public is impressed by this false dedication. But people who pay attention know those arrested rarely face any penalties. Is it any wonder some have gone on to assume civil disobedience is a perfectly safe and consequence-free thing to do?”

“Law enforcement shouldn’t make essentially fake arrests so activists can look good on camera, and government officials who get arrested on purpose should be fired,” Amy Ridenour added. “A high-ranked member of the Bush and Obama Administrations, James Hansen, who ran NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies before he retired, wasrepeatedly and intentionally arrested – in violation of the law as well as federal ethics rules — while serving in the executive branch, the part of the government that is tasked with enforcing laws. He was never fired. When even high-ranking members of the law enforcement branch of government break the law to get attention for their pet causes, sanity has broken down. Until we restore sanity, expect to see more civil disobedience. And because law enforcement treats some civil disobedience as worse than others, and enforces the law against some while dropping charges against others, expect to see more deaths like the one in Oregon yesterday.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research last commented on the Oregon situation in a press release here. It neither endorses nor participates in acts of civil disobedience, and it has not endorsed the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.